One could ask: How many citizens of all countries choose to take advantage of their vested legal rights, or not, according to their individual circumstances? Answer: As they so desire. Example: I have a right to own, use, and carry a shaving brush, and I do that whenever I wish.

brothers wrote:One could ask: How many citizens of all countries choose to take advantage of their vested legal rights, or not, according to their individual circumstances? Answer: As they so desire. Example: I have a right to own, use, and carry a shaving brush, and I do that whenever I wish.

Lord knows I could be wrong, but my understanding is that one needs to be a state licensed barber to carry a concealed shave brush in Oklahoma.

Today I carry 24/7 in one way or another. Maine was a low crime rate state, and still mostly is, but our demographics are changing, and not for the better. What keeps our crime low is the number of people who do have firearms at home and on their person. Where firearms have been removed from the law abiding population predators flourish, where the law abiding population has ready access predators don't. It's common sense and the facts. Look at what happened to Australian crime rates after it's latest experiment with an unarmed population. It's crime rates have exploded. It does here as well. But when the predators know that law abiding citizens might have fangs it has, in every case, dropped the crime rate. Law abiding citizens, by definition, don't commit crime. The dirtbags get their hands on weapons despite the law.

I was a LEO for a few years and saw some of the things that folks do to other folks, both good and bad. As A LEO I carried a handgun on my side as an insurance policy. At that time I got my first CC permit, and have carried off and on for many years. I tried to figure out how many years I've had the ability to carry concealed and I think it's close to 33 years. For the past 15 years I've carried 24/7; at least a handgun, sometimes 2, sometimes a handgun and an AR-15 cased and in the trunk.

So far I've never been forced to use anything against 2 legged predators. But I have dispatched a number of quite obviously sick wild animals. The last time that I didn't, instead I called him, the game warden gave me verbal hell for not dispatching it. One doesn't kill a rabid fox with ones hands. One doesn't kill a weasel in the chicken coop with ones hands either.

Why do I carry? For the reasons I gave previously in another thread. There are predators, sheep, and sheepdogs and until a predator shows itself they all look the same. Under what circumstances would I employ deadly force? Technically the answer is to prevent the loss of life, however strange that may sound. The goal is not to kill, but to stop another's actions. I would help a LEO in a heartbeat and the cops pretty much know that of all CCW permitees. Would I employ deadly force to help a fellow citizen? Probably not*. There is a lawyer attached to every bullet launched and today even satan himself becomes an angel in white to hear a family after an incident, despite how guilty the person. Just look at Trayvon and the gentle giant. Both clearly dirtbags and guilty as hell, but both had willing accomplices of the media and the racial instigators to twist the facts. So my firearms will remain safe and for the use of only loved ones (Includes friends, family, and myself) and probably no one else. But that depends on circumstances. But back to the consequences of using deadly force... even if the case is cut and dried and the shooting is found to be justified, one is looking at about $40k in legal fees, but that doesn't let one off of the hook. There could be a civil lawsuit that follows by the family of the supposed angel, no mater how guilty the perp clearly was, all of a sudden he was an angel and "You have to pay!". More legal fees. They will be borne by the CCW holder only. Hence my decision, made in the calm of my home, to not use my available deadly force for strangers. What would happen in the heat of the moment? I have no idea. But my responsibility is to my wife, myself, and other loved ones; that includes keeping everything I've worked for.

BTW, and this is NOT a reason to carry... The local cops pretty much assume that they have back up by CCW permitees and they do cut us some slack at times. I was allowed to walk from a traffic ticket a few years ago, and after verbally going up one side and down the other side of a state trooper (who did a bone headed thing and then threatened me with a ticket) was allowed to walk. They aren't supposed to have the information, but we're in the states database as having carry permits, and it comes up when our drivers license is run.

*There is another reason I probably won't employ deadly force for strangers. It has to do with morality. Most sheep think nothing of calling an underpaid cop to defend their useless lives, but don't have the morality to take actions to defend their own life. If ones life is worth defending, then do it, if not, then don't expect others to do it for you. Not being an underpaid cop anymore, and realizing that everything I've worked for my entire life is on the line, I'll allow the person who has made the decision to take no actions to protect their life have the chips fall where they may. That's basically what they want based on their decision. I'll allow that person to lose everything that they've worked for and maybe their life, since that was their choice made before the event. I'll just make notes so that the cops can find the perp(s) if me and mine are left alone. No problems that way for me, and everyone got what they ultimately wanted based on their decisions. I don't intend to be another George Zimmerman. I wouldn't have written any of that or had that attitude before those events happened, but that was the result of that incident for many folks with carry permits. We woke up.

Today I carry 24/7 in one way or another. Maine was a low crime rate state, and still mostly is, but our demographics are changing, and not for the better. What keeps our crime low is the number of people who do have firearms at home and on their person. Where firearms have been removed from the law abiding population predators flourish, where the law abiding population has ready access predators don't. It's common sense and the facts. Look at what happened to Australian crime rates after it's latest experiment with an unarmed population. It's crime rates have exploded. It does here as well. But when the predators know that law abiding citizens might have fangs it has, in every case, dropped the crime rate. Law abiding citizens, by definition, don't commit crime. The dirtbags get their hands on weapons despite the law.

Buzz, that has to be done since some folks just don't get it unless it's presented in various ways. Some probably still didn't "get it" despite that. The subject matter and the folks who need it pretty much demand that technique.

I have a sister in law who absolutely couldn't understand that concept, oh, maybe 40 years ago. It took her all that time to finally realize the simple truth. Today she's an OK person, but oh how thick headed back then. All it took was time and experience for realization to set in, then all of my words came flooding back to her. Despite my explaining it in different words to her she just couldn't understand. I tried.

Mr. Pinchy, if you want to know more of what makes us tick I can send you a .pdf back issue of Concealed Carry Magazine chosen at random. Hopefully your mail box is big enough. Maybe if you google "Concealed Carry Association" you can find a link with more information. I never did that, so I have no idea what you'll find.

I posted something earlier this morning, but pulled it, discussing some of the same things SD did. LEO's a required to run towards the danger, civilians (even permit holders) are not.

Texas doesn't just hand the permit out after you fill out a form. here is classroom work discussing carry law, the do's and don'ts of concealed carry, conflict resolution, etc.There was also a simple but surprisingly difficult shooting class. And finally - fingerprinting and a Homeland Security background check.

My son and I both have our permits, and we discussed - at length - circumstances that would cause us to intervene. Like SD said - for family it's a yes. For strangers - it really boils down to the circumstance. Disparity of Force stuff (adult on child) is one thing, but verbal arguments don't warrant deadly force. And just flashing your weapon is a crime (brandishing).

Frankly if you find yourself in a situation where a weapon is needed you have to decide if being in prison for using it is better than the outcome of not having/using it.

Kennesaw, GA encourages gun ownership (or did a few years back - they made national news broadcasts about it). Not city law - just encouraged to own if you were legally allowed to do so, and it was known throughout North Georgia. They are in Cobb County - north of Atlanta - and have lower than expected crime rates, compared to the surrounding cities (again - this was when it made the news back then. May have changed since then, locals can let us know how it goes today).

BTW - Texas is considering Open Carry law now. The Governor has indicated he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk. But, even if it becomes law - I WILL NOT open carry. I see more potential down side than I do upside.

Gene

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress."
Mark Twain

"People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Alan Moore

Dittos requirements for a CCW here as well in Maine. For the moment anyway. We're working on getting the same permit requirements that Vermont has, that is, none. Most law abiding citizens are just that and it's already against the law for criminals to have firearms. I teach handgun and can teach other disciplines as well, and I suggest to noobs that they take a course of some sort, even if it's not my one on one tutoring (I'm expensive).

FWIW, while I make some $ tutoring I'm for the carry permit being the 2nd Amendment. So far it's worked everywhere it's been tried , and Vermont has had that permit system since day 1.

I agree with no open carry also. It just gets one the first bullet, and it riles up the sheep since they don't understand that there are sheepdogs among the flock. Let the sheep sleep and just chew their cud. (do sheep chew cud?) Concealed carry also allows one to have the advantage of surprise on the perp. He/she might actually even forget you're there (sort of) allowing one to take better cover for what might come later. Every situation is different.

brothers wrote:One could ask: How many citizens of all countries choose to take advantage of their vested legal rights, or not, according to their individual circumstances? Answer: As they so desire. Example: I have a right to own, use, and carry a shaving brush, and I do that whenever I wish.

It's been years since I looked it up and I haven't had any interest since. No I don't.

That will give you deniability that I was lying. But I wasn't. I'd spend time on it, but my time is precious and I've already spent more time on this than I can spare. Today was unusual in that I had time here and there to put in to this thread.

ShadowsDad wrote:. . . Just look at Trayvon and the gentle giant. Both clearly dirtbags and guilty as hell. . .

Brian,

at the risk of this thread not lasting, can you clarify this part please? Trayvon Martin was guilty as hell of what, and clearly a dirtbag because of what?

Thanks

I wrote a great deal to clarify and I posted it, but where is it? If I have time later I'll try again. Just google it, and specify the police investigation. Maybe that will get it for you. Again, if I have time I'll try again.

ShadowsDad wrote:It's been years since I looked it up and I haven't had any interest since. No I don't.

That will give you deniability that I was lying. But I wasn't. I'd spend time on it, but my time is precious and I've already spent more time on this than I can spare. Today was unusual in that I had time here and there to put in to this thread.

I'm sure you weren't lying, but maybe the report you read was. But since you don't have time to back up your claims, and I can't find any evidence of it, I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.

You stated that you couldn't find the data. I found it with the first google search and it was the 2nd item down if I remember correctly. It took all of possibly 30 seconds and virtually no effort.

The gun turn in was in '96, the data shows a few years of more or less stable violent crime then the pretty much across the board increase that I referred to. It appears to be on the decrease at this time but still higher than it was in '96 in many areas.